Considered and decided by Amundson, Presiding Judge, Huspeni, Judge, and
Randall, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

RANDALL, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court's judgment awarding respondent
$5,963.50, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to
support respondent's claims of breach of warranty, breach of contract, fraud,
and revocation of acceptance of a car she purchased from appellant. Because of
the lack of a record, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTS

Although appellant failed to provide a transcript of the district
court proceedings, from the parties's briefs it appears the facts are
essentially as follows: on September 5, 1994, respondent Sharon Bishop
purchased a 1988 Chevrolet Corsica from appellant L.B. Sales, Inc., d/b/a
Continental Motors (Continental). Apparently, the next day Bishop, having
taken the car to her mechanic and another auto body shop, attempted to return
the car because it was unsafe to drive. The manager told Bishop to give him a
few days to find a replacement for her. Bishop maintains that Continental
never contacted her regarding a replacement vehicle.

On September 24, 1994, Bishop sent Continental a notarized, certified letter
detailing her problems with the Corsica and the lack of action on the part of
Continental in resolving the matter. In the letter, Bishop stated that on
September 6, 1994, she had taken the Corsica to her mechanic and a body shop
and was informed that the car had extensive damages of at least 70% of its
market value. Bishop also outlined how Continental's manager failed to find
her a replacement vehicle and how he never got back to her despite her repeated
attempts to reach him between September 8 and 10, and continuing through
September 24, 1994. It appears from the letter that on September 12, 1994,
Continental towed the car from Bishop's residence. By a letter signed on
October 1, 1994, and sent certified mail to Continental, Bishop stated she was
relinquishing ownership of the Corsica.

On May 5, 1995, Bishop commenced a lawsuit in Ramsey County Conciliation Court
against L.B. Sales, Inc., d/b/a Continental Motors. She asserted claims that
appellant sold her an automobile that was unsafe to drive and was damaged in
the amount of at least 70% of its market value. The conciliation court ruled
in favor of Bishop and awarded her $5,963.50, plus $50. On August 9, 1995,
Continental filed a demand to remove the matter to Ramsey County District
Court. A trial was held on November 13, 1995. On December 11, 1995, the trial
court ruled in Bishop's favor, ordering Continental to provide Bishop with
title to the car in question, and awarded her $500. On January 17, 1996, the
trial court amended its judgment and awarded Bishop $5,963.50, plus $50
pursuant to Rule 524 of the General Rules of Practice for the District Court.
Continental now appeals.

D E C I S I O N

On appeal, Continental argues the evidence was insufficient as a
matter of law to support respondent's claims. Continental argues that pursuant
to Article 2 of the Minnesota Commercial Code, the burden was on Bishop to
prove any breach with respect to the sale of the Corsica. Namely, Continental
argues Bishop failed to present any competent evidence regarding the quality
and condition of the Corsica and that she failed to present any competent
evidence to establish that there was a non-conformity with the car and that any
alleged non-conformity "substantially impaired the value" of the Corsica.
Continental also claims that the evidence does not support a finding that
Bishop established the elements necessary to prove fraud. Finally, Continental
argues that Bishop's claims must fail as a matter of law because she failed to
present any evidence regarding damages.

cannot determine from the record * * * whether the court acted arbitrarily or
whether the determination of the court is supported by the evidence, [the
reviewing court is] compelled to hold that the appeal must be dismissed.

Noltimier, 280 Minn. at 29, 157 N.W.2d at 531.

On the record submitted by Continental we are unable to determine on what
grounds the trial court based its decision. Except for Continental's
post-trial memorandum, there are no affidavits, memoranda, or other items in
the trial court record to indicate the basis for the trial court's decision.
The case law is clear that where appellant argues sufficiency of the evidence
and fails to provide a transcript, the appeal is dismissed. We know simply
that respondent won in conciliation court, appellant removed the matter to
district court, and that after a trial de novo, the trial court again ruled in
respondent's favor. Beyond these

basic facts, there is nothing in the record as submitted to allow meaningful
review of the issues presented by Continental. The appeal is dismissed. From
what bare facts the record did bring to our attention, nothing about the
conciliation court award, and then later the trial court award to respondent on
the merits, appears unseemly. The judgment awarded respondent stands.